AB Player Suggestions

[DMH 220]

I want to open this forum for players to suggest changes to the upcoming reset and ways we can improve upon the current game mechanics. Anderson and his AB left this game in good shape but I want to give players the opportunity to speak their minds. 

[Matt 9]

Going back this far one of the most important things for players to do will be to keep their actions in the historical context of the time. 

 

Resets at that start in the past usually avoid repeating news from real life too much, but I think it would be helpful to keep a constant stream of real life news from the admins (in addition to new scenarios of course) in order to help keep context

[Avner 276]

You had some congress members calling for universal healthcare and other "socialist" legislation back then, the only thing that was rarely ever even mentioned was legalization of gay marriage etc so I think most players have common sense to represent the historical context..

 

But I would suggest scrapping my player media system for this round, it's alot of work to grade it every week or every other week but I guess that's up to the player media mod. 

[Lloth 94]

In 1986, you have four broadcast news sources (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN) and a few major newspapers. Internet was mainly college students and researchers; most attention was on dial-up Bulletin Board Systems, with AOL keywords Compuserve being the big national player at $5/hour (in other words, not so big).

 

 

 

Essentially, there is no "player media".

 

The Drudge Report starts in 1995 as a subscription-based email.

 

Google is founded in 1998. The big search engine in 1986 is Yahoo, indexed by category manually, although there are a ton of competitors.

 

Players would have to get information out the old-fashioned way. Press releases, pre-taped and live interviews, letters to constituents, and speeches.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Lloth

[Ashcroft 121]

Since we're playing the House (with no filibuster), incorporating the disparate factions of each party into the gameplay of the House will be critical to making it interesting. The 80s were also a more politically-diverse time – there were conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans, and everything in between. When it comes to voting, I would recommend some influence system where players control a proportion of votes within their faction of their party. Requiring players to select a faction (moderate, establishment, radical - something like that) upon signing in would be essential for this. The idea is similar to IVS as we've used it in the past, except make it specifically faction-based.

 

The last time we played a House round, factions were not properly represented and the lower chamber just became a partisan rubber stamp for the Speaker (aka me). Not particularly exciting. For a House round to work, there has to be a certain amount of intra-party strife (like in the real House), not just monolithic voting blocs as we often have in Senate rounds.

 

From an electoral point of view, it would also be interesting to allow factions to grow their seats in addition to the seats of the wider party. This could potentially be done by having each faction submit their own campaign round, with the overall party score being an aggregate of each faction's round and the distribution of seats within the party total being based on the relative scores of each faction's campaign. Just a thought.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Ashcroft

[Lloth 94]

Oh, and no Netscape until 1994. What web there is in 1986 is mostly text.

 

There are online conversations through Internet Relay Chat, but that was mostly college students and group chats. (Is the UNC Chapel Hill IRC server still there? In its time, the log-in screen identified it as "the graveyard of high GPAs")

[Lloth 94]

I should note party leadership has a lot more control of the House and elections in 1987. However, House members tend to get...interesting.

 

Dennis Kucinich comes to mind. As does Bernie Sanders.

 

Also, caucuses aligned a bit differently. There is still a fair "Washington Consensus" in 1987. See "Man of the House" by Tip O'Neil about the Reagan era. The party leaders still met and worked out deals.

[Lloth 94]

The admins may wish to consider giving the Speaker his full authority in the round. After all, the man IS ""Air Force Three", and has only two people between him and the Oval.

[Guest Storm]

I think we all know how to play the game...just saying..

[Lloth 94]

*shrug*. Okay, I will just go away again, then.

[Clay 1,012]

3 minutes ago, Lloth said:

*shrug*. Okay, I will just go away again, then.

Good plan

[Avner 276]

42 minutes ago, Ashcroft said:

Since we're playing the House (with no filibuster), incorporating the disparate factions of each party into the gameplay of the House will be critical to making it interesting. The 80s were also a more politically-diverse time – there were conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans, and everything in between. When it comes to voting, I would recommend some influence system where players control a proportion of votes within their faction of their party. Requiring players to select a faction (moderate, establishment, radical - something like that) upon signing in would be essential for this. The idea is similar to IVS as we've used it in the past, except make it specifically faction-based.

 

The last time we played a House round, factions were not properly represented and the lower chamber just became a partisan rubber stamp for the Speaker (aka me). Not particularly exciting. For a House round to work, there has to be a certain amount of intra-party strife (like in the real House), not just monolithic voting blocs as we often have in Senate rounds.

 

From an electoral point of view, it would also be interesting to allow factions to grow their seats in addition to the seats of the wider party. This could potentially be done by having each faction submit their own campaign round, with the overall party score being an aggregate of each faction's round and the distribution of seats within the party total being based on the relative scores of each faction's campaign. Just a thought.

I agree with this fully, its so boring and tiring when players are pressured to obey party leadership on everything. I honestly believe  if party leadership threatens to punish a player for voting different or creating strife negative press or consequences should be allowed to happen.

[Ashcroft 121]

3 minutes ago, Avner said:

I agree with this fully, its so boring and tiring when players are pressured to obey party leadership on everything. I honestly believe  if party leadership threatens to punish a player for voting different or creating strife negative press or consequences should be allowed to happen.

I mean... coercion from party leadership is part and parcel of congressional politics. What I'm saying isn't that party leadership shouldn't be coercive, but rather that backbenchers should have a way to push back/demand concessions (by controlling votes in their faction).

 

As an addendum to my proposed system outline, I would suggest that party leadership (Speaker, floor leader, whip) should be able to influence votes of the whole party, not just their faction. This would add realism and also give players incentive to go for party leadership.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Ashcroft

[Avner 276]

I know what you said, we don't disagree on that. I'm adding on to the point that players should be  rewarded for being independent at times instead of constantly having the threat of being kicked out of caucus for simply disagreeing and that consequences should apply. 

[Ashcroft 121]

6 minutes ago, Avner said:

I know what you said, we don't disagree on that. I'm adding on to the point that players should be  rewarded for being independent at times instead of constantly having the threat of being kicked out of caucus for simply disagreeing and that consequences should apply. 

I agree 100%

[Cyril 97]

1 hour ago, Lloth said:

In 1986, you have four broadcast news sources (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN) and a few major newspapers. Internet was mainly college students and researchers; most attention was on dial-up Bulletin Board Systems, with AOL keywords Compuserve being the big national player at $5/hour (in other words, not so big).

 

 

 

Essentially, there is no "player media".

 

The Drudge Report starts in 1995 as a subscription-based email.

 

Google is founded in 1998. The big search engine in 1986 is Yahoo, indexed by category manually, although there are a ton of competitors.

 

Players would have to get information out the old-fashioned way. Press releases, pre-taped and live interviews, letters to constituents, and speeches.

 

Good thing player media can easily become player editorials and newspapers players can build up and stuff. 

[Conrad 162]

1 hour ago, Ashcroft said:

Since we're playing the House (with no filibuster), incorporating the disparate factions of each party into the gameplay of the House will be critical to making it interesting. The 80s were also a more politically-diverse time – there were conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans, and everything in between. When it comes to voting, I would recommend some influence system where players control a proportion of votes within their faction of their party. Requiring players to select a faction (moderate, establishment, radical - something like that) upon signing in would be essential for this. The idea is similar to IVS as we've used it in the past, except make it specifically faction-based.

 

The last time we played a House round, factions were not properly represented and the lower chamber just became a partisan rubber stamp for the Speaker (aka me). Not particularly exciting. For a House round to work, there has to be a certain amount of intra-party strife (like in the real House), not just monolithic voting blocs as we often have in Senate rounds.

 

From an electoral point of view, it would also be interesting to allow factions to grow their seats in addition to the seats of the wider party. This could potentially be done by having each faction submit their own campaign round, with the overall party score being an aggregate of each faction's round and the distribution of seats within the party total being based on the relative scores of each faction's campaign. Just a thought.

 

My issue with this is that where do we draw the line between realism/just voting against something for the sake of it. In the past, when someone has had a degree of influence, they would sink bills and proposals on the basis of their own opinion on it and not necessarily due to opposition in any real sense of the word. 

[Ashcroft 121]

4 minutes ago, Conrad said:

 

My issue with this is that where do we draw the line between realism/just voting against something for the sake of it. In the past, when someone has had a degree of influence, they would sink bills and proposals on the basis of their own opinion on it and not necessarily due to opposition in any real sense of the word. 

I mean... that's Congress for you.

[Conrad 162]

Just now, Ashcroft said:

I mean... that's Congress for you.

 

Well, I'd more so say if that's how the game mechanics go, then when do other members of the caucus/influence pool begin to fall away?

[Ashcroft 121]

4 minutes ago, Conrad said:

 

Well, I'd more so say if that's how the game mechanics go, then when do other members of the caucus/influence pool begin to fall away?

I'd say that if people are being ridiculous and overly partisan or just obstructionist, you should complain in the press and that should bring some consequences (perhaps involving losing influence).

[Guest Storm]

All I am saying is please don't be power bottoms to Conrad, I want an actual functioning Republican party this round.

[Conrad 162]

3 minutes ago, Storm said:

All I am saying is please don't be power bottoms to Conrad, I want an actual functioning Republican party this round.

 

We were functioning!

[Guest Storm]

1 minute ago, Conrad said:

 

We were functioning!

functioning as power bottoms. Conrad is not the Republican party. 

[Conrad 162]

3 minutes ago, Storm said:

functioning as power bottoms. Conrad is not the Republican party. 

 

[Evan 126]

7 hours ago, Storm said:

functioning as power bottoms. Conrad is not the Republican party. 

 

 

Conrad, probably:

Edited September 11, 2018 by Evan